There has been much discussion about Time Magazine’s choice of YOU for the Person of the Year – and not just in the blogosphere. It was a topic covered by the Roundtable on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
After thinking about this overnight and hearing the talking heads pontificate on their choices, I have to say that I think Time made the right choice. We – all of us – had a hand in changing the course this year, more than ever before. We took the conversation to places it had never been. We distributed information – and opinion – faster and more widely than ever before. The internet provided us an opportunity to participate in the process more than we ever had before. So I wholeheartely agree with the choice that we – collectively as well as individually – should be the PoTY.
I’ve had my say 
So who do you think should have been named the PoTY?
I dunno, Vivian. It seems like kind of a cheap way out. I mean, what are they going to do next year? Everyone has technically already won. Can you win twice, or will next year be, “The unborn?” “Those born post-2006?”
In all seriousness, it is a good choice, and one that ought to satisfy everyone, for who can say that they were upset that they did not win? Perhaps only those who desire a solo spotlight… but then again, obviously, those people did not accomplish anything significant enough to merit that spotlight this year!
Posted by Genevieve | Sunday, December 17, 2006, 10:56 pmOne thing I have noticed is that the media is pushing more and more into using stories that freak people out. E-coli scares, Wii remote injuries, shark attacks, and the like. It gets worse and worse every year; not these incidents. If anything, these incidents are not happening any more than they might at any other time. They are just receiving more attention. Now, I know you are all wondering “CR, where are you going with this?”
Well, Time has not always picked the POTY as a hero, but sometimes a heel. So, I might suggest the mainstream media (and no, not because I believe they have a liberal slant, but because they misuse their role to sell papers), or perhaps even more specifically, Matt Drudge, who helps to perpetuate a lot of this junk. Do not get me wrong, Drudge can be a great resource, but isn’t it silly to post about a bird flu that has failed to take hold at a more widespread level?
Certainly the world is not perfect, but things could be much worse. For this reason, I pick an MSM (or if you want me to be more specific, Matt Drudge for name recognition) that has misused their role and leave much of America a nervous wreck worrying about things that will not hit them.
Posted by CR UVa | Sunday, December 17, 2006, 11:15 pm